IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
P.S. Lalu, S/o. Sahadevan (Late) - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 19437 of 2020
Decided On : 25-09-2020
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 -Rule 4(6) -Power on the LLMC to correct the notified data banks-No prescribed form for preferring applications before the LLMC for the said purpose.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 4.05 Ares within the limits of Kadungalloor Village-The land of the petitioner is included in the draft data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 -Preferred Ext.P2 application before the fifth respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (the LLMC) constituted under the Act for removal of his land from the data bank-Inaction on the part of the LLMC in considering Ext.P2 application-
• Whether the LLMCs constituted under the Act have the necessary power to make appropriate corrections in the data bank after the amendment to sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules in terms of SRO 902 of 2018
Finding of the court:
Ext.P2 is an application preferred by the petitioner in the form prescribed in terms of Circular No.TA(2)18988/16 dated 26.07.2017-The writ petition can be disposed of directing consideration of the said application.
Result: Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 4.05 Ares within the limits of Kadungalloor Village. The land of the petitioner is included in the draft data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the case of the petitioner is that the same was one lying as dry land when the Act came into force and therefore, the same ought not have been included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P2 application before the fifth respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (the LLMC) constituted under the Act for removal of his land from the data bank. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the LLMC in considering Ext.P2 application. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after the amendment to sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (the Rules) in terms of SRO 902 of 2018 with effect from 15.12.2018, the LLMCs constituted under the Act are not entertaining applications for removal of lands from the data bank, since in terms of the said amendment, the Revenue Divisional Officers concerned are empowered to exercise that power.
4. In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, it is necessary to examine the question as to whether the LLMCs constituted under the Act have the necessary power to make appropriate corrections in the data bank after the amendment to sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules in terms of SRO 902 of 2018.
5. The procedure for preparation of data bank is provided in the Rules. Rule 4 dealing with the said procedure reads thus:
OTHER LANGUAGE
As evident from the extracted Rule, the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy lands existing as on the date of coming into force of the Rules, viz., 24.12.2008. In terms of sub-rule (2)(1)(a) of Rule 4, the Village Officer has to provide the Agricultural Officer the particulars of the cultivable paddy lands in the village in terms of the revenue records, and the Agricultural Officer has to inspect those lands thereupon to ascertain whether they are cultivable. Thereafter, in terms of the said sub-rule, both the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer together have to prepare a draft data bank of the paddy lands. In terms of sub-rule (2)(1)(b) of Rule 4, the LLMC concerned shall, thereupon, examine the draft data bank prepared under sub-rule 2(1)(a) of Rule 4 and finalize the same by making appropriate corrections therein, having regard to the satellite pictures of the lands. Sub-rule (4) of the Rules provides that the data bank finalized in terms of sub-rule (2)(1)(b) of Rule 4 shall be forwarded by the LLMC thereafter, to the Secretary of the concerned Local Self Government Institution and he shall cause the same to be notified in the Gazette. Sub-rule (4d) of Rule 4 provides that if anybody is aggrieved by any entry in the notified data bank, he can prefer an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and sub-rules (4e) and (4f) of Rule 4 provide that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the same and make appropriate corrections in the data bank, after calling for the report of the Agricultural Officer concerned and also after inspecting the land and perusing the satellite picture of the land, if necessary.
6. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 which was in existence even at the time when sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 was amended in terms of SRO 902 of 2018, provides that if anybody is aggrieved by any entry in the notified data bank, he can prefer an application before the LLMC, and sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 4 provide that if an ap
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.